>Informally, what I see as the defining rule for "closed world" is:
But that would break existing programs. You would need a language extension
so the feature could be selectively enabled. There are plenty of proposals
for how to do this (from closed class keywords to 'kind' statements)...
I think however that you can get the benefits of better improvement
rules without going all the way to a closed world. My question in the
last post was: what if we assume an open world whilst type-checking and
generating function type signatures, but assume closed world when resolving
instances?
Keean.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
